of Nokounam, may his sanctity be preserved, Session (242)
This treatise undertakes the exegesis of verse 39 of Surah Al-Baqarah, centred upon the phenomenon of falsehood and denial, offering a profound framework for understanding this cardinal sin and its consequences. This interpretation, employing theological, ethical, and psychological approaches, scrutinises the gradations of falsehoodfrom quotidian lies to the denial of divine revelationsand underscores the necessity of self-purification, clarity in discourse, and commitment to truth. The structure of this discourse, aimed at providing a systematic content appropriate for academic settings, comprises sections each dedicated to a specific facet of the subject, enriched with supplementary analyses. The objective transcends mere elucidation of Qur'anic concepts, extending an invitation to reflect upon the ethical and scholarly responsibilities incumbent upon experts and researchers when confronting the truth.
Falsehood, defined as the utterance contrary to reality, stands in opposition to truthfulness, which denotes veracity. Denial, however, refers to the repudiation and rejection of truth, particularly the divine verses. This distinction highlights the difference between an individual sin (falsehood) and a sin bearing social and doctrinal repercussions (denial). Due to its targeting of divine signs, denial constitutes a graver sin, which in the verse under discussion results in eternal abode in the fire.
وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَكَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا أُولَٰئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ ۖ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ
Translation: "And those who disbelieve and deny Our signsthose are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally."
Falsehood manifests in various degrees: from ordinary, everyday lies to heinous falsehoods, such as denial of divine verses. Each degree bears differing ethical and eschatological ramifications. Although ordinary lies constitute sin, denial of divine verses, due to its contradiction with the truth of existence, represents the severest form of falsehood, linked in the Noble Quran with eternal punishment. These gradations necessitate precise evaluation of actions.
The assessment of sins, such as the comparison between falsehood and fornication, demands a just balance. Severe falsehood, exemplified by denial of divine verses, is on par with incestuous fornication, as both undermine foundational moral and doctrinal principles. This equilibrium requires a rigorous ethical philosophy; absent such, reliance on unauthentic narrationssuch as equating beard shaving with grave sinsmay result in doctrinal distortions.
Certain narrations, such as comparing beard shaving to grave sins in the Kabah, lack balance and are deemed Israiliyyat. Such narrations, by generating contradictions in religious understanding, weaken the stature of religious knowledge. Critique of these narrations highlights the importance of source validation in exegesis and jurisprudence.
Beard shaving (removal of the chin beard) is prohibited, substantiated by the definitive Sunnah of the Prophets, Saints, and Righteous who all maintained a full beard. Nonetheless, equating this act with disproportionate sins, such as sins committed in the Kabah, lacks validity. The believers beard, as a symbol of religious identity, should encompass the entire face and not be confined to non-religious styles (e.g., the professors beard).
The Noble Quran and authentic narrations classify severe falsehood, such as denial of divine verses, as a sin graver than fornication, particularly incestuous fornication. This comparison, observing balance, indicates the status of falsehood as a barrier to divine guidance. For instance, another Quranic verse states:
وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا
Translation: "And who is more unjust than one who forges a lie against Allah?"
Unlike sins such as oppression or fornication, whose prohibition is straightforward, falsehoods rulings are complex and require expert analysis. Falsehood may be obligatory (e.g., to preserve life), recommended (e.g., reconciliation), forbidden (e.g., denial of divine verses), or disliked. This duality indicates the subtlety of Shariah rulings and underscores the necessity of deep understanding of contexts and intentions.
The human self may justify falsehood under obligatory or recommended categories, such as backbiting under the pretext of exposing a sinner. This risk highlights the role of piety and self-discipline in controlling the ego. Absent piety, falsehood becomes a tool to justify other sins, for instance when individuals deem lying permissible citing expediency.
Falsehood, like poison, is permissible only in specific, limited circumstances; its excessive use leads to spiritual death. Just as poison is administered cautiously and under medical prescription, falsehood must be employed prudently and with Shariah sanction. This analogy underscores the necessity of caution in speech and avoidance of unnecessary falsehood.
Equivocation (tawriyah) is a form of lying accompanied by deceit, worse than explicit falsehood, and undermines the scholars credibility. For example, saying "The master is not here where I stand," while the person is indeed present, constitutes a non-transparent act leading to mistrust. Due to its deceptive nature, tawriyah is considered a hypocritical behaviour.
If falsehood is obligatory, explicit lying is preferable due to transparency over equivocation. Tawriyah is interpreted as craftiness and deceit, casting doubt even on the truths of the scholar. This critique stresses the necessity of maintaining apparent honesty even in obligatory falsehood.
Rare instances of tawriyah in history, such as Prophet Abrahams statement ("I am ill") or theological debates, occurred in critical situations to preserve life or belief. These cases do not justify routine use of tawriyah.
Scholars must speak with such clarity that listeners perceive their speech as the language of the heart. Non-transparent speech causes mistrust and diminishes religious influence. This transparency reflects scholars role as ethical exemplars.
Ethics should instruct not only how to speak but also how to remain silent and avoid unnecessary speech. Lying is forbidden; however, truth-telling is not obligatory at all timesone may remain silent to avoid falsehood. This principle underscores human freedom to choose silence over lying.
Speech without the speakers consent, such as breach of trust, is forbidden and leads to indirect falsehood. This critique highlights the importance of safeguarding trust in speech and its impact on social confidence.
Irrelevant questions, such as enquiries into others private affairs, compel individuals towards falsehood or equivocation. Such questions, common in social culture, decrease honesty and escalate tension. Psychologically, excessive suspicion and sensitivity, especially in familial relations, exacerbate this issue.
Knowledge must nourish the soul and serve as a tool for self-reformation. Knowledge that does not lead to the correction and wellness of the self is futile. This principle highlights the spiritual function of knowledge in guidance and salvation.
Due to their engagement with jurisprudential rulings and theorising, scholars are vulnerable to denial by association or distortion of religion. Therefore, every night they must purify themselves from doctrinal impurity with the two testimonies of faith and seeking forgiveness. Just as a pathologist or sanitation worker requires physical purification, the scholar requires spiritual purification.
Scholars, like Abd al-Azim Hasani, must continually present their religion to the Infallible to be protected from denial. This presentation emphasises the role of religious authority in guiding scholars and preserving truth.
Seeking forgiveness, even during prostration, must be performed with humility to prevent arrogance. Scholars must commit themselves to the truth by acknowledging the Prophets teachings and protect themselves from arrogance, malevolence, and worldliness.
Falsehood is a necessary, individual act; denial is a compounded act that involves repudiation of truth or others and is considered a graver sin. Denial leads to rejection of divine verses and is a disease that leads the sinner to disbelief and polytheism.
Denial may be direct (e.g., denial of God) or by association (e.g., distortion of religion). Distortion, due to its association with denial, leads to doctrinal degradation. This risk is particularly grave for scholars engaged in jurisprudence and theorising.
The evaluation of actions in ethical philosophy requires a precise balance that assesses the gradations of falsehood and denial. Without such evaluation, understanding of rulings and sins remains incomplete. Religious knowledge must be equipped with advanced philosophical ethics tools.
The exegesis of verse 39 of Surah Al-Baqarah, focusing on falsehood and denial, provides a comprehensive framework for understanding this grave sin and its consequences. Falsehood, with its diverse gradations from ordinary lies to denial of divine verses, is a complex sin necessitating jurisprudential and ethical expertise. Denial, as a compounded and more heinous sin, results in repudiation of truth and eternal damnation in the fire. The critique of tawriyah, due to its deceit and non-transparency, emphasises the necessity of honesty even in obligatory falsehood. Scholars, due to their heavy responsibility in preserving truth, must protect themselves nightly from denial through the two testimonies and seeking forgiveness. The philosophy of ethics and precise evaluation of actions are tools for understanding the gradations of falsehood and denial that religious knowledge must be equipped with. This exegesis invites humanity to self-purification, clarity, and commitment to truth in order to avoid ethical and doctrinal deviations and to attain the rank of guidance and salvation.
Supervised by Sadegh Khademi
